Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 6, 2013

11270868 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JIAN WANG and GANG YU
____________

Appeal 2010-009776
Application 11/270,868
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2010-009776
Application 11/270,868

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ Invention
According to Appellants, the invention relates to electronic devices,
and more particularly, to electronic devices that include workpieces and
conductive members therebetween. Spec. 1, ll. 10-12.

Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 is representative and reads as follows:
1. An electronic device comprising:
a first workpiece comprising a first electronic
component that includes a first electrode and a first
organic layer;
a second workpiece comprising a first conductor; and
a first conductive member that electrically connects the
first electrode and the first conductor, wherein the first
conductive member allows the electronic device to be
reversibly disassembled, reversibly reassembled, or
any combination thereof.

Reference
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Park US 2004/0014251 A1 Jan. 22, 2004
Rejections
Claims 1-6 and 10-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Park. Ans. 3-6.
Appeal 2010-009776
Application 11/270,868

3

Claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Park. Ans. 7-8.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in rejecting independent claims 1 and 17
as being anticipated by Park, because Park fails to disclose “the
reversible nature of the assembly and disassembly of the
presently claimed subject matter” (Br. 5)?
2. Did the Examiner err in rejecting dependent claim 6 as being
anticipated by Park, because Park “provide[s] the thickest
portion at one of the conductive surfaces, and the associated
text cites advantages for this structure” (Br. 5-6)?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to
Appellants’ arguments. We do not agree with Appellants’ conclusions.
Reversibility Issue – Claims 1 and 17
Claims 1 and 17 recite that the “first conductive member allows the
electronic device to be reversibly disassembled, reversibly reassembled, or
any combination thereof” (emphasis added). Appellants contend that Park
does not disclose this limitation. Specifically, Appellants argue that Park
teaches a structural seal pattern 160, as shown in Figure 5 of Park, such that
separation of the first and second substrates would not be easily permitted.
Br. 5. In Appellants’ view, the seal pattern is of a fixed nature, as opposed
to the claimed “reversible nature.” Br. 5.
Appeal 2010-009776
Application 11/270,868

4

Furthermore, Appellants contend that the connection pattern 132
(which the Examiner points to as disclosing the claimed “first conductive
member”) may include “metallic materials having a melting temperature
lower than that of the other materials to improve adhesion.” Br. 5.
Appellants cite paragraph 48 of Park, which describes that the lower melting
temperature of the connection pattern 132 helps avoid damage to other
device components during the heating/adhesion step. Br. 5. According to
Appellants, this advantage, as well as other advantages cited in paragraph 57
of Park, do not teach or fairly suggest reversibility, and, in fact, teach away
from the claimed structure. Br. 6.
The Examiner responds that Park’s disclosure of a seal pattern does
not foreclose the electronic device from being reversibly disassembled or
reversibly assembled. Ans. 8-9. In particular, the Examiner points out that
the present invention, similarly to Park, provides for peripheral sealing 822
to join the two workpieces. Ans. 8 (citing Spec. page 27). In the
Specification, Appellants describe that the device is sealed in a fixed nature
and that, by melting the first conductive member, a connection between the
first electrode and first conductor is made. Ans. 8 (citing Spec. page 28).
The Examiner finds that Park teaches the use of the seal pattern in the same
vein as Appellants describe the periphery sealing material 822 – where, in
Park, the substrate connection patterns 132 (or 332, in Figures 7a-7c) are
aligned, the periphery of one or both substrates is sealed, and the connection
pattern is thereafter heated to a temperature range “where only the
connection pattern selectively melts without damaging other components.”
Ans. 8 (citing Park, fig.7c, items 322, 356, and ¶¶ 47, 55). The Examiner
concludes that Park’s disclosure of using low melting point conductive
Appeal 2010-009776
Application 11/270,868

5

material for the connection pattern (claimed first conductive member),
allows for the device in Park to be reversibly disassembled or reversibly
assembled or any combination thereof. Ans. 9 (citing Park, ¶¶ 48-49).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions that Park
teaches the disputed limitation. As correctly stated by the Examiner, Park
discloses using low melting point conductive material for the connection
pattern, which allows for the device in Park to be reversibly disassembled or
reversibly assembled or any combination thereof. Further, Park teaches the
same assembly steps as those disclosed by Appellants, including the step of
using a sealing material before applying heat to melt the first conductive
members. Park states that “the first and second substrates 110 and 150 may
be attached together using a seal pattern 160 formed along a peripheral
portion of the first and second substrates 110 and 150.” Park, ¶ [0044]
(emphasis added). First, Park’s use of the seal pattern does not appear to be
either mandatory or permanent. Second, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the disputed claim language does not preclude the use of a
seal pattern. Therefore, Appellants’ argument – that Park’s disclosure of the
seal pattern fails to teach reversibility – is not persuasive. We also find
unpersuasive Appellants’ argument that Park’s disclosure of the advantages
of improved adhesion via the connection pattern fail to teach the claimed
reversibility.
1

For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
of independent claims 1 and 17 as being anticipated by Park. We also

1
“[T]he question whether a reference ‘teaches away’ from the invention is
inapplicable to an anticipation analysis.” Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell
Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed.Cir. 1998).
Appeal 2010-009776
Application 11/270,868

6

sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-5, 10-16, and 18-20, not
separately argued by Appellants. See Br. 5-6.
Issue Concerning the Shape of the Conductive Member – Claim 6
Claim 6 recites that a “width of the first conductive member at a point
about halfway between the first electrode and first conductor is wider than a
width of the first conductive member at a point closer to the first electrode or
the first conductor.” Appellants argue this claim requires that the widest
portion of the claimed first conductive member is “between the substrates,
away from attachment points with the first electrode and the first
conductor.” Br. 5. In Appellants’ view, Park teaches that the widest portion
of Park’s connection pattern (claimed first conductive member) is at one of
the conductive surfaces (Br. 5-6), and not away from them as the claim
allegedly requires.
We disagree with Appellants’ contentions. As the Examiner correctly
points out, the halfway point of Park’s conductive member, between the first
electrode and the first conductor, is wider than a point closer to the first
electrode 156. Ans. 9. The claim only requires that the width at a halfway
point is wider then one of either the first electrode or the first conductor.
Ans. 9. We concur with the Examiner, that one of the ends of Park’s
conductive member is narrower than the halfway point, and that, therefore,
claim 6 reads on the shape of Park’s conductive member (Ans. 9).
Furthermore, as stated supra with regard to claims 1 and 17, and to
the extent Appellants argue that the shape of Park’s conductive member and
the advantages of improved adhesion teach away from the claimed
reversibility, we find that argument unpersuasive.
Appeal 2010-009776
Application 11/270,868

7

For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
of claim 6 as being anticipated by Park.
Rejection of Dependent Claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants contend the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7-9 for
obviousness over Park is in error for the same reasons as discussed with
respect to claims 1 and 17. Namely, Appellants argue that the emphasis and
advantages of improved adhesion properties in Park teach away from
“disassembly and reassembly.” Br. 6. Based on the patentability of claim 1
over Park, Appellants argue that the dependent claims are not obvious over
Park. Id. We do not agree with Appellants’ conclusions.
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553
(Fed. Cir. 1994). As stated supra with respect to claims 1 and 17, Park, by
selecting a material for the connection pattern having a melting point lower
than that of the other device components, teaches a connection pattern that
allows for the device in Park to be reversibly disassembled or reversibly
assembled or any combination thereof. Ans. 9 (citing Park, ¶¶ 48-49). That
Park touts improved adhesion of the connection pattern does not nullify that
teaching. We are further unpersuaded that in teaching the advantages of
improved adhesion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be
discouraged from following the path set out in Park, or would be led in a
direction divergent from the path that was taken by Appellants.
Appeal 2010-009776
Application 11/270,868

8

For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claims 7-9 as being unpatentable over Park.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 1-6 and 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Park, and claims 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Park.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRM

ELD